EDW IN M. LEE, MAYOR REV. AMOS C BROW N, CHAIRMAN
SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY
MINUTES SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY Community Partners Annual Plan 2012 Meeting May 15, 2012
SCHEDULED: 3:00-5:00 p.m. at 1290 Fillmore Street, San Francisco, CA 94115
Community Partners Present: Joyce Crum Debra Benedict Sara Short Dan Bowersox Betsy Eddy Minouche Kandel Ralph Payton Amanda Fried Jennifer Friedenbach Miguel Carrera Dee Schexnayder Cesnae Crawford Mike Virgil Nadiyah Shereff Jessica Lehman
Organization Represented: Human Services Agency (HSA) SAN, SHAC Housing Rights Committee (HRC) Homeless Prenatal Program (HPP) SF Human Services Agency Bay Area Legal Aid (BALA) Hamilton Family Center (HFC) Mayor’s Office/HOPE Coalition of Homelessness (COH) Coalition of Homelessness Mayor’s Office/HOPE Western Addition Family Resource Center (WAFRC) Coalition of Homelessness TAYSF Senior Action Network (SAN)
Linda Martin-Mason, Ombudsman, San Francisco Housing Authority announced that the May 22nd meeting will be held at City Hall Room 201 at 3:00pm. Mrs. Martin-Mason reviewed the May 10, 2012 letter provided via e-mail to the Community Partners and asked if there were any questions. None were asked. Mrs. Martin-Mason requested discussion from the Community Partners regarding a single preference scheme for both programs versus separate preference schemes. Betsy Eddy, HSA, asked whether this would streamline the application process. Sara Short, HRC, stated that currently the Section 8 program is more robust with more preferences and by creating a single preference scheme, some of those benefits would be lost. . Further, Ms. Short expressed support of streamlining the preferences. 1815 EGBERT AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94124 TELEPHONE: (415) 715-3951 TTY: 415.467.6754 WWW .SFHA.ORG
Jennifer Friedenbach, Coalition on Homelessness, stated that Public Housing is unique in that it provides housing for seniors or disabled or families. Thus, there is already a limitation in Public Housing that the private market and therein, the Housing Choice Voucher Program, does not apply to. Ms. Friedenbach requested that the demand for the units and who may occupy them should be thought. Further, Ms. Friedenbach recommended opening the waitlist and narrowing down the preferences. Moreover, Ms. Friedenbach suggested that with the right preferences, the Housing Choice Voucher waitlist should diminish. Jessica Lehman, SAN, stated that persons with disabilities is not a preference in the Housing Choice Voucher program and that it should be because it is a preference in the Public Housing Program. Nicole McCray Dickerson, Acting Director, Housing Choice Voucher Program, clarified that disability is not a preference in either program but is considered in Public Housing because some buildings require that an applicant be a senior or disabled. Amanda Fried, HOPE, recommended that there be two separate lists but that the definitions be as consistent as possible. Mr. Rodriguez said that the preferences on the waitlist causes too many families wait for their vouchers. Ms. Friendenbach, COH, stated that we should have separate preferences but with the same definitions wherever possible. Conventional Housing Program: Ms. Eddy, HSA, asked whether “homeless families” would include all the family shelter names in the city. Joyce Crum, HSA, responded that Star Housing and Rafael House also has a working relationship for referrals from the waitlist. Ms. Shortt, HRC, suggested including a list of eligible shelters for families and DV shelters. Commenter suggested adding “in San Francisco” to Homeless Families preferences. Question was brought up on the “Homelessness” federal meaning; is couch surfing considered for Housing Authority voucher? Mrs. Martin-Mason asked for clarification on an earlier suggestions regarding the definition of homeless family and family shelters. Ms. Short, HRC, suggested that a general handout for preferences be made for applicants to know if they are eligible for public housing. The consensus is that the definition of family shelter is self-explanatory. 2
Ms. Lehman asked if the word “homeless” should be removed. There was consensus. Ms. Martin-Mason removed “homeless” term from preferences. Commenter asked whether a 5 month old fetus counts as a minor because it is considered a family in certain shelters. Consensus was that this is an eligibility issue. Ms. Friedenbach, COH, suggested adding two separate sentences stating families with children in a domestic violence shelter and families with minors in an SRO. Re: Substandard preference: Ms. Crum suggested that all sub-standard preferences be defined and that all sub preferences be stand-alone definitions. Ms. Short stated that sub-standard term does include homelessness. Ms. Friedenbach suggested including the entire definition. Ms. Short stated that stabilization units are not considered affordable housing, but they should be a preference for public housing. Ms. Friedenbach asked if the preference line for seniors and seniors with disabilities should be on the same line. Jessica responded that a person with a disability, seniors with disabilities, and all seniors with non-accessible housing should be a preference. Ms. Friedenbach wanted seniors with disabilities to be on a separate category. Categories would then be families, seniors with disability, individuals, and then sub preferences Ms. Short confirmed with Ms. McCray-Dickerson that people with SSI and any disability aid is considered to be in the disability clause. Ms. Martin-Mason changed the term to seniors or persons with disabilities residing in San Francisco non-accessible housing for the preferences. Ms. Lehman asked for clarification on the “institutionalization” portion of the substandard housing preference. Ms. McCray-Dickerson provided an example of what this meant, i.e. applicant at Laguna Honda. Ms. Lehman suggested that seniors and people with disabilities be addressed.
3
Ms. Friedenbach and Ms. Short both questioned whether non-homeless in substandard housing should be a preference. The majority of attendees questioned substandard wording for these preferences and the nonhomelesss definition. Ms. Shortt suggested tabling the definition and re-visiting it. Ms. Martin-Mason reviewed all the preferences made so far. Ms. Friedenbach suggested changing “substandard” term to “non-homeless”. Commenter suggested keeping the “San Francisco” location term on all the shelters and SROs. HCV program Ms. Martin-Mason read out the primary and secondary preferences that are currently in place. Ms. Shortt asked whether a lot of applicants use the “paying over 50% of their income for rent” as a preference. Ms. McCray-Dickerson responded that a lot do. Ms. Friedenbach stated that we’ve covered all of the preferences from Public Housing, so we should keep it with Housing Choice Voucher for the time being. Ms. Friedenbach suggested having a look at the studies from the Housing Trust funds in order to identify who the preferences are more likely to impact. Consensus that involuntary, homeless, substandard, families, seniors, and disabled terms may be left in the working draft. Ms. Martin-Mason added the Absolute Preferences to the HCV preference scheme. Ms. Friedenbach thought that the secondary preferences are too confusing and that we should scrap for them Section 8 Vouchers. There was consensus. Sam stated that now, if you are not in San Francisco, everyone else that qualify in other preferences are able to get their vouchers. Ms. Short suggested that a “San Francisco” term should have a specified time of residence, in an effort to encourage bringing families back to San Francisco who moved out. Consensus that both preference schemes should allot points to any and all categories a person or family qualifies for and to table the 50% HCV preference until the next meeting. Meeting Adjourned 4